Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue.
1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
LITERATURE
AND TRANSLATION STUDIES (IJELR)
A QUARTERLY, INDEXED, REFEREED AND PEER REVIEWED OPEN ACCESS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
http://www.ijelr.in
KY PUBLICATIONS
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol. 3. Issue 1.,2016 (Jan-Mar. )
TRANSLATABILITY OF METONYMY IN THE SELECT VERSES OF THE HOLY QUR’AN:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME URDU TRANSLATIONS OF QUR’AN
AMBREEN SHERWANI
Research Scholar, Dept. of Linguistics,
Aligarh Muslim University
ABSTRACT
The Quran is full of rhetoric devices present throughout the book. The vocabulary,
style, eloquence, effectiveness, and the rich poetic rhythm of this masterpiece, which
lead to its linguistic and stylistic uniqueness, are the miracles of a Miracle, i.e. the
Quran. One of such rhetorical devices is metonymy. “Newmark (125) points out that a
metonymy occurs ‘where the name of an object is transferred to take the place of
something else with which it is associated’. This substitution is conditioned by the
existence of a contiguity relation between the literal and figurative meanings and the
existence of an implicit clue indicating that the literal meaning is not intended” (Ali,
Brakhw, Fikri Bin Nordin et al. 589). Metonymy in the Holy Quran is not a useless
substitution because it usually serves a purpose. As it is not easy to translate any
rhetoric devices because of the poetic language used, metonymy also faces problems
when rendered from Quran to any other language. The present paper has tried to
show such problems of untranslatability of metonymy and also the cognitive model of
metonymy has been focused.
KEYWORDS: Metonymy, Conceptual metonymy, Quran, Untranslatability, Idealized
Cognitive Model
©KY PUBLICATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Quran is the masterpiece of Arabic language from many standpoints such as linguistics and stylistics. The
vocabulary, style, eloquence, effectiveness, and the rich poetic rhythm of this masterpiece, which lead to its
linguistic and stylistic uniqueness, are the miracles of a Miracle, i.e. the Quran. As Arberry in the introduction
of his book the Koran interpreted states, the Quran "is neither poetry nor prose but a unique fusion of both"
(x).
Among the various rhetorical devices used in the Holy Qur’an, metonymy is the one which is the
prime focus of this paper.
Metonymy, etymologically speaking, comes from the Greek word “metonumia” which means “a
change of name” (Li 1998). Instead of referring to something directly, we can use some other terms related
with it to refer to the specific thing. For example, we can use “Chomsky” for the book written by Chomsky.
AMBREEN SHERWANI
417
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
E.g.,
1.
َ َ ‫َ ِ ْ قُ ْلنَا ِ ْل َ ٰۗلل ِٕىِ َ ِ ْس ُج ُد ْ ِ ٰۗل‬
And [mention] when We said to the angles, “Prostrate to Adam”. (17:61)
The Qur’an uses Adam as a metonym for the whole human race.
2.
َ ‫َ َّز َ َ لَ ٍْ َ ْ ِ ٰۗل‬
He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book…… (3:3)
THE COGNITIVE VIEW OF METONYMY:
Newmark (125) points out that metonymy occur ‘where the name of an object is transferred to take the place
of something else with which it is associated’. This substitution is conditioned by the existence of a contiguity
relation between the literal and figurative meanings and the existence of an implicit clue indicating that the
literal meaning is not intended.
The notion of ‘contiguity’ is at core of most definitions of metonymy. Traditional approaches locate
contiguity relationships in the world of reality, whereas cognitive approaches locate them at the conceptual
level. Lakoff and Johnson (30) think of contiguity in terms of the whole range of conceptual associations
commonly related to an expression. Lakoff (65) was the first who accounted metonymic contiguity within the
framework of idealized cognitive models (ICM). The ICM concept is meant to include not only people’s
encyclopedic knowledge of particular domain but also the cultural models they are part of.
The view of metonymy reflected in standard definitions tend to describe metonymy as ‘a figure of speech’ that
consists in using the name of one thing for that of something else with which it is associated. The cognitive
view of metonymy makes different assumptions.
Radden Gunter and Zoltan Kovecses (17) were the first who focused upon this cognitive model of
metonymy. The cognitive view of metonymy espoused here makes different assumptions:
i. Metonymy is a conceptual phenomenon;
ii. Metonymy is a cognitive process;
iii. Metonymy operates within an idealized cognitive model.
METONYMY IS A CONCEPTUAL PHENOMENON:
Metonymy is not just a matter of names of things, but essentially a conceptual phenomenon. As already
pointed out by Lakoff and Johnson (29), metonymy like metaphor is part of our everyday way of thinking is
grounded in experience, is subject to general and systematic principles and structures our thoughts and
actions. Lakoff and Johnson’s example of the metonymy in ‘She’s just a pretty face’ illustrates the general
conceptual nature of metonymy. We derive the basic information about a person from the person’s face. The
conceptual metonymy the face for the person is therefore part of our everyday way of thinking about people.
E.g.,
3. ٌ ‫ُ ْ ِ ِ ٍْ َ ُ ْنِ ِ ًْ ُ ُ ْ ِس ِ ْ َ ٌَ ْ َ ُّدد ِ َ ٍْ ِ ْ َ ْ ُ ُ ْ ۚ َ َ ْــِٕىِ َد ُ ُ ْ هَ َو‬
Racing ahead, their heads raised up, their glance does not come back to them, and their hearts are
void. (14:43)
This type of metonymy is restricted to the world of conceptualization in which cultural models play an
important role in understanding the whole ICM of metonyms. All the events are the part of the whole ICM of
‘Day of Judgment’. Understanding the above example of metonymy, largely depends on our knowledge of the
world and culture which they are part of, not on the linguistic meaning of the words out of context or on the
pragmatic conventions for interpreting the language of these utterances.
METONYMY IS A COGNITIVE PROCESS
The traditional view defines metonymy as a relationship involving substitution. This view is reflected
in the notation generally used for stating metonymic relationship, namely, X stands for Y. In the above example
of ‘She’s just a pretty face, the name, ‘face’ is this taken to be a substitute expression for person, so that the
sentence is assumed to mean ‘She’s a pretty, person. But this cannot be the whole meaning since ‘She is pretty
person, does not mean that she is pretty ‘all over’, but it suggests that most importantly she has a pretty face.
This can be seen in the oddity of the sentence expressing a counter-expectation. “She is pretty person but
AMBREEN SHERWANI
418
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
doesn’t have a pretty face. The two metonymies, THE FACE FOR PERSON and THE PERSON FOR THE
FACE, thus, complement each other. A person’s face evokes the person and a person evokes the person’s face.
Metonymy doesn’t simply substitute one entity for another entity but interrelates to form a new, complex
meaning.
e.g.,
4. ْ ِ ‫َ َوْ َ ٰۗل ٰٓ ي ِ ِ ْ ُ جْ ِ ُ وْ َ َا ِكسُوْ ُ ُ ْ ِس ِ ْ ِ ْن َد َ ِّب‬
If you could but see when the criminals are hanging their heads before their Lord, (32:12)
This metonymy refers to the temporal relations, sub-event, and whole event relations as scripts-based
referents to the whole event of Judgment Day. It is not substituting the whole event by the sub-event but it is
showing the sub-event of that whole event.
Metonymic relationships should therefore more adequately be represented by using an additive notation such
as X plus Y, as suggested by Radden.
The metonymic process consists in mentally accessing one conceptual entity via another entity. This is
the cognitive explanation Langacker (30) offers for metonymy. He conceives of metonymy as a reference-point
phenomenon in which one conceptual entity, the reference point, affords mental access to another conceptual
entity, the desired target. We will refer to the reference-point entity as the ‘vehicle’ and the desired target
simply as the ‘target’. In the example of ‘She’s pretty face, the pretty face serves as the vehicle for accessing
the person as the target. Means, both the vehicles and the target are conceptually present. However, one of
them is seen as being more salient them the other and is therefore selected as the vehicle.
METONYMY OPERATES WITHIN AN IDEALISED COGNITIVE MODEL:
The notion of ‘contiguity’ is at the core of most definitions of metonymy. Traditional approaches
locate contiguity relationships in the world of reality, whereas cognitive approaches locate them at the
conceptual level. Lakoff and Johnson (29) think of contiguity in terms of the whole range of conceptual
associations commonly related to an expression. Lakoff (65) accounts for metonymic contiguity in the
framework of idealized cognitive models (ICM). The ICM concept not only includes people’s encyclopedic
knowledge of particular domain but also the cultured models they are part of.
E.g.
5. ِ ْ َ ْ ‫ٰۗلٌٰٓاٌَُّد َا َّز ِ ٌْ َ ٰۗل َ نُوْ َ ا َ ُ ْ ِ َ قِ ٍْ َ َ ُ ُ ْفِ ُ ْ ِ ًْ َس ِ ٍْ ِ ٰۗل ّ ِ اَّزاقَ ْل ُ ْ ِ َى‬
O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the
cause of God, you adhere heavily to the earth? (9:38)
The notion of underlined metonymy is to refer to the whole concept of life preference and hesitation
to go to Jihad. So, metonymy here is highly related to the cognitive models of cultural preference. And thus,
the notion of ICM cuts across the world of reality and the world of conceptualization or world of language.
On the basis of the three cognitive properties of metonymy discussed above we will define metonymy as
follow:
“Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access
to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model”.
TRANSLATABILITY OF METONYMY IN QUR’AN:
Translatability is defined as “the capacity for some kind of meaning to be transferred from one
language to another without undergoing radical change” (Pym & Turk 273).
A great deal of literature has been devoted to the question of the untranslatability of the Qur’an. In an article
entitled ‘Translating the Qur’an’ Fazlur Rahman (24) asserts that the inspired language of the Qur’an “can
never be completely satisfactorily translated into another language”.
As Qur’an is impossible to translate into any language without losing its beauty, translators face many
problems in translating the rhetorical devices used in the Qur’an. In the same way, metonymic translation also
becomes challenging. The metonymy is not merely a rhetorical device, but it is that figurative trope used with
its own conceptual structure and cognitive processes of understanding and comprehension. It is bound by the
AMBREEN SHERWANI
419
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
socio-cultural framework within which it operates. Hence, translators used different methods to translate
metonymy.
Following are some of the instances of metonymy used in the Qur’an and their equivalents used by some Urdu
translators:
3.
ْ ُ َ‫َ ا َ ٍْ َ َ ٌْ ِد ٌْ ِ ْ َ َ ا َْلف‬
What is before the people and also what is hidden from them, (2:255, Saheeh International)
ɉo kʊch bǝndõ ke samne he ɔr ɉo kʊch ʊnse oɉhǝl hɛ (Moududi)
ɉo age he ʊnke ɔr ɉo pi:che hæ ʊnke (Junagardhi)
The expressions ‘between his hands’ and ‘behind him’ are metonyms for something “perceivable by
him” and something “hidden from him” respectively. The vehicle ْ ِ ٌْ ‫ َ ٌْ ِد‬is used in the Qur’an to achieve the
target ‘perceivable’, but the above three translators used different vehicles to achieve the sense i.e., ‘in front
of them’. Though the vehicles used are different, but still metonymy is present even in the translations.
‫ٰۗل‬
4.
ِ ْ َ ْ َ ِ ‫َ ِ ّ ِ ٌَ ْس ُج ُد َ ْ ًِ َّزس ٰۗل ٰۗلو‬
All that is in the heavens and the earth prostrates itself, (13:15, Saheeh International)
vo to Allah hi: hæ jɪsko zǝmi:n-o-a:smã ki hǝr ci:z taʊʕǝn vǝ kǝrhǝn sǝɉdǝ kǝr rǝhe hæ (Maodudi)
Allah hi ke liye zǝmi:n ɔr a:sma:n ki sari maxlu:q sǝjda kǝrti hæ (Junagardhi)
The Qur’an has used the expression ‘yasjud’ (prostrate himself or prostrate themselves) as a
metonym for complete submission to His Will. Prostration is a sub-act of the whole act of submission to Allah;
hence a specific vehicle of the ICM is used to represent the whole ICM i.e., the target.
The same metonym is used by Urdu translators also. Hence the translation is the literal one.
‫ٰۗل‬
5.
ِ ّ ُ ‫َ َوْ َ َّز َ ا ًِ ْ َ ْ ِ ِ ْ َ َجـ َ ٍ َ ْق َ ٌ َّز ْ َ ْ ُ ٌَ ُ ُّدد ٗه ِ ْ َ ْ ِد ٖه َس ْ َ ُ َ ْ ُ ٍ َّز ا َفِ َد ْ َكلِ ٰۗل‬
And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven
[more] seas, the words of God would not be exhausted. (31:27, Saheeh International)
Zǝmi:n me ɉɪtne dǝrǝxt he ǝgǝr vo sǝb ke sǝb qǝlǝm bǝn ɉaæ̃ ɔ r sǝmǝndǝr (dǝva:t̪ bǝn ɉae) ɉɪse sa:t
mǝzi:d sǝmǝndǝr roʃnai mʊhǝiya kǝrẽ tǝb bhi Allah ki ba:tẽ (lɪkhne se) xǝtm na hongi. (Maodudi)
‘Saba’ (Qur’an 31:27) and ‘saba’een’ (Qur’an 9:80) are used in the Qur’an as a metonym for several.
Such metonymies work within the cultural framework. In other cultural models, a number may not represent
many but in Qur’an it does.
The Urdu translation of this metonymy is the literal one and hence doesn’t capture the intended meaning.
6.
‫َاَقِ ْ َ ْ َ َ ِل ِّبد ٌْ ِ َحنِ ٍْفًا‬
So direct your face [i.e., self] toward the religion, inclining to truth. (30:30, Saheeh International)
pǝs …..yǝksu ho kǝr ǝpna rʊx ʊs di:n ki sɪmt mẽ ɉǝma do (Maodudi)
pǝs qayǝm rǝkh ǝpni tǝwaɉɉe ko di:n ke lɪye (M. Ishaq)
pǝs a:p yǝk su hoke ǝpna mũ :h di:n ki tǝrǝf mʊtavǝɉɉe kǝrdẽ (Junagardhi)
The word ‘wǝɉha’ (face) (Qur’an 30:30) is often used in the Qur’an metonymically in the sense of ‘one’s whole
being’. So the ‘face’ is acting as a vehicle for reaching the target ‘whole being’ and ultimately to ‘attention’.
Within the ICM of ‘whole being’, the most eligible vehicle used in the Qur’an is ‘face’, but in Urdu the more
salient vehicle is another member of the same ICM i.e., ‘rʊx’ (side or face or attention) as used in the first case
which is again a metonymic expression and ‘tǝvǝɉɉe’ in the second. But in the third both the vehicle and the
target is present. Hence the translation loses the metonymy in this.
7.
ِ ‫َك َّز َ ْ قَ ْلَ ُ ْ قَوْ ُ ُوْ ٍ َّز َا ٌ َّز ِ ْ َوْ ُ ُ ْ َ ْ َا‬
The people of Noah denied before them, and [the tribe of] ‘Aad and Pharaoh, the owner of stakes.
(38:12, Saheeh International)
ɪn se pehle Nu:h ki qɔm, ɔr ʕa:d, ɔr mexɔ̃ vala fɪrʕõn (Maodudi)
In classical Arabic this phrase was used as a metonym for ‘mighty domain’ or firmness of power. “The number
of poles supporting a Bedouin tent is determined by its size, and the latter has always depended on the status
and power of its owner; thus, a mighty chieftain is often alluded to as ‘he of many tent-poles”.
AMBREEN SHERWANI
420
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
Urdu translator rendered this phrase literally, but the question arises whether the cognitive framework of
Urdu culture has ‘mekhon wala’ in the ICM of ‘mighty domain’. Hence, this may create problem for the
learners to understand.
8.
ْ ُ ٌْ ‫َ ِ َ ا َك َس َ ْ َ ٌْ ِد‬
It is for what your hands have earned, (42:30, Saheeh International)
tʊmhare ǝpne hathõ ki kǝmai hæ (Maodudi)
This is an oft recurring metonym for man’s doings and conscious attitudes in this world, meant to bring out the
fact that these doings and attitudes are the ‘harvest’ of a person’s spiritual character and have, therefore, a
definite influence on the quality of his life in the hereafter. The nature of (the life in the hereafter) depends
on, and is a result of, what one has previously earned. The trigger used here to achieve the target of deeds and
actions is rendered literally in both the languages. And the vehicles used in both the languages are the part of
ICM of these languages. Hence the translations are maintaining metonymy as well as giving the sense of
meaning.
9.
‫صٍَ ِ َا‬
ِ ‫هُ َو ٰۗل ِ ٌ ِنَا‬
He holds its forelock [i.e., controls it]. (11:56, Saheeh International)
ɉɪs ki coṭi ʊske hath mẽ na ho (Maodudi)
This expression is a metonym denoting a person’s utter control over someone. When describing a
person’s subjection to another person, the ancient Arabs used to say ‘the forelock of so and so is in the hands
of so and so.’ It is the replacement of a kind of sub-event for the whole action. The conceptual model of
‘subjection’ carries in it the present phrase as one of the aspect of controlling someone.
10.
ٍ ‫َ َح َ ْل ٰۗلن ُ ٰۗلَلً َ ِ َ ْ َو ٍ َّز ُ ُس‬
And We carried him on a [construction of] planks and nails, (54:13, Saheeh International)
ɔr Nuh ko hǝm ne ek tǝxtõ ɔr ki:lõ vali (kǝʃti) pǝr sǝwar kǝr dɪya (Maodudi)
In this verse, when describing the story of Prophet Noah (peace be upon him), the Arabic word for
ship is not in the verse but is implied by Allah’s mention of planks and nails. The PARTS of the ship are used to
represent the WHOLE ship. But while rendering it into Urdu, the translator made it more explicit by using the
word ‘kashti’. So the metonymic expression is being replaced by its sense.
11.
……‫……… َ َ ْ َح َّز ْ َ ٍْ َ َ ِ ْ َ َ َ َ َ ُ نَا َ َ لَ ٍْ ِ َ ْ ٌَّز َّز َّزو َ ِ ِ َ ا‬
So whoever makes hajj [pilgrimage] to the House or performs ‘umrah - there is no blame upon him for
walking between them. (2:158, Saheeh International)
َ‘ ٍْ َ ْ ’ is used to represent ‘the Ka’bah’. This is the metonymy in which a more GENERAL word is used for
representing a SPECIFIC thing. Both Maodudi and Junagardhi use the expression ‘Baitu Allah’ while M. Ishaq
uses the word ‘Ka’bah’. In all these translations, translators have replaced the vehicle by target by translating
the sense. Hence metonymy is not rendered in the translations.
12.
ً َ ‫َ َ ْ َس ْلنَا َّزس َ ا َ َ لَ ٍْ ِ ْ ِّب ْد‬
And We sent [rain from] the sky upon them in showers, (6:6, Saheeh International)
ʊn pǝr hǝmne a:sma:n se xu:b barɪʃ bǝrsai ̃ (Maodudi)
bheɉa hǝmne badǝl ʊnpǝr bohot bǝrǝsne vala (M. Ishaq)
hǝmne ʊnpǝr xu:b ba:rɪʃẽ bǝrsaĩ (Junagardhi)
In this verse, the word ( ‫ – س ا‬the sky) is used to refer to the intended meaning ‘rain’, which serves as an
indication of the heaviness of the rain. A metonymic expression of INITIATOR i.e., ‘sky’ is used for the
PRODUCT i.e., ‘rain’ is used. But the translations of Maodudi and Junagardhi render the sense of the
expression hence eliminating the metonymy, while M. Ishaq replaced it with another member of the ICM of
rain i.e., ‘ba:dal’ (cloud).
13.
ِ ْ ‫ِ َّز ٗه َ لِ ٍْ ٌ ِ َ ِ لُّد ُد‬
Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the breasts. (42:24, Saheeh International)
wo si:no ke chʊpe hʊe raz janta hæ. (Maodudi)
wo si:ne ki batõ ko janne vala hæ. (Junagardhi)
AMBREEN SHERWANI
421
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
There is a metonymy in which ‘heart’ is represented by ‘breast’. The same pattern is followed in the
translations also. Hence, the translation is the literal one and is not difficult for any culture to understand
because ‘chest’ or ‘breast’ is often used for ‘heart’ in almost all the cultures.
14.
ِ ِ ‫َ ْه ُج ُ ْ هُ َّز ًِ ْ َ َ ا‬
And forsake them in bed; (4:34, Saheeh International)
Xwa:bgahõ me ʊnse ǝlehda rǝho (Maodudi)
ɔr ʊnhe ǝlǝg bɪstǝrõ pǝr choṛ do (Junagardhi)
ɔr ɉʊda rǝho ʊnse sone ki ɉǝgahõ mẽ (M. Ishaq)
This expression in the Qur’an involves the metonymic transfer ‘beds’ that has its own frame of reference to the
sacred association between spouses. The PLACE is used to represent the ACTION in this metonymy. The similar
device is used in the translations also. ‘khwabgah’, ‘sone ki jagah’ and ‘bistar’ all are the metonyms of the
sexual relation between spouses. Junagardi used the same metonym ‘bistar’ as in Qur’an but Maodudi used a
different member of the ICM of sleep/sexual relation i.e., khwabgah (place of sleep) and M. Ishaq to did the
same. Hence these translators also used the metonymy but through a different vehicle of the same ICM to
achieve the same target.
15.
ْ ُ َ َ ‫َ َ آٰ َ ْ َس ْلنَا ِ ْ َّز سُوْ ٍ ِ َّز ِلِ َسا ِ قَوْ ِ ٖه ٍُِ ٍَِّب‬
And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for
them. (14:4, Saheeh International)
hǝmne ǝpna pæȢa:m dene ke lɪye ɉǝb kǝbhi koɪ rǝsu:l bheɉa hæ, ʊsne ǝpni qɔm hi ki zǝban me
pæȢa:m dɪya hæ…. (Maodudi)
hǝmne hǝr hǝr nǝbi ko ʊski qɔmi zǝban me hi bheɉa h (Junagardhi)
This is common metonym used in most of the languages of the world. ‘Tongue’ i.e., the INSTRUMENT is used
to refer RESULT i.e., language. Tongue is not substituting language but representing the result of the use of
tongue i.e., language. The same device is used in all the Urdu translations mentioned above but in Sahih
International, the sense is translated.
ُ َ ِ ‫َ ْ َا‬
16.
The Calamity! (101:1, Saheeh International)
ǝzi:m ha:dsa (khǝtkhǝtane vali) (Maodudi)
khǝṛkhǝṛa dene vali (Junagardhi)
ṭhokne vali (M. Ishaq)
Qara'a- When two things hit each other violently and make a disturbing noise. If it does not make you scared
or startled, it is not a Qari'ah. It is also used for a tough situation when a loud noise has taken your peace
away. This metonymy refers to the temporal relations, sub-event, and whole event relations as scripts-based
referents to the whole event of Judgment Day. It is not substituting the whole event by the sub-event but it is
showing the sub-event of that whole event.
CONCLUSION
According to the cognitive model of metonymy, “metonymy is a cognitive process in which one
conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the
same idealized cognitive model”. The ICM concept is meant to include not only people’s encyclopedic
knowledge of particular domain but also the cultured models they are part of. As already pointed out by Lakoff
and Johnson (1980), metonymy like metaphor, is part of our everyday way of thinking, is grounded in
experience, is subject to general and systematic principles and structures our thoughts and actions.
In the Qur’an also, metonymy is playing the same role. It’s merely not substitution of one expression
by the other, but it shows the SPECIFIC of the GENERAL.
The same strategies are used by the translators also. In some cases, they opt for literal translation to
rescue the beauty of the language of the Qur’an. In some cases, some other members of the same ICM of the
target expression are used to maintain the metonymic usage. But in few cases, the sense is rendered and
metonymy is not used in the translation.
AMBREEN SHERWANI
422
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies
Vol.3.Issue. 1.2016 (Jan-Mar)
As far as the suggestions to the translators are concerned, the translator should keep in the mind the
culture of the people whom the translation is being done, before selecting the equivalents. The metonymy
operates within a conceptual framework which varies from culture to culture.
REFERENCES
Aldahesh, Ali Yunis. "(Un)Translatability of the Qur’ān: A Theoretical Perspective." International Journal of
Linguistics 6. 6 (2014): 23-45.
Ali, Abobaker, et al. "Some Linguistic Difficulties in Translating the Holy Quran from Arabic into English."
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 2. 6 (2012): 588-590.
Arberry, A. J. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Dirven, Rene and Poringo Ralph. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2002.
Dirven, Rene. "Metaphor and Metonymy: Different Strtegies of Conceptualization." Leuvense Bijdragen 82
(1993): 1-28.
Eldin, Ahmad Abdel Tawwab Sharaf. "A Cognitive Metaphorical Analysis of Selected Verses in the Holy Quran ."
International Journal of English Linguistics 4. 6 (2014): 16-21.
Gerard, Steen. "Metonymy Goes Cognitive-Linguistic." Style;Spring 39. 1 (2005): 1.
Ghazala, Hasan Said. "Translating the Metaphor: A Cognitive Stylistic Conceptualization (English – Arabic) ."
World Journal of English Language 2. 4 (2012): 57-68.
Goossens, Louis. "Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for
linguistic action." Louis Goossens et al., eds.,. By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic
Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1995. 159-174.
Homeira, Foth. The metonymic self in Whitman's Poetics. San Jose State University, 2000.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980.
Lakoff, George. "Cognitive models and prototype theory." (Ed.)., Ulric Neisser. Concepts and Conceptual
Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1987. 63-100.
Langacker, Ronald W. "Reference-Point Constructions." Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1 (1993): 1-38.
Li, Shiping. A Study of English Rhetoric. Changsha: Hunan People’s Press, 1998.
Maula, Aizul. A Metaphor Translation of Holy Quran: A Comparative Analytical Study. Jakarta: State Islamic
University (thesis), 2011.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshirel: Prentice Hal, 1988.
Ni, Lili. "For "Translation and Theories"." English Language Teaching 2. 2 (2009): 78-83.
Pym, A and H Turk. "Translatability." (Ed.), M. Baker. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London
and NewYork: Routledge, 2001. 273–277.
Radden, Gunter and Kovecses Zoltan. "Towards a theory of metonymy." Panther, K U and Gunter Radden.
Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1999. 17-59.
Rahman, Fazlur. "Translating the Qur’an." Religion and Literature 20.1 (1988): 23-30.
Shehabat, Alham Hussien. Translatability of Metonymy in the Holy Quran into English. Yarmouk: Yarmouk
University MA Thesis, 2004.
Zheng, Haicui. "On Metonymy and Its Translation." World Journal of English Language 4. 4 (2014): 28-24.
AMBREEN SHERWANI
423